Political Hypocracy

I watched Theresa May’s speech in Philadelphia today courtesy of:


I do not deny that it was a good speech in that it outlined the many ways that the USA and Britain have cooperated, over the decades, to fight for freedom, humanity and democracy. Many battles have been fought, and many lives of our soldiers have been lost in those fights.

And yet, at the same time, we have seen in the UK, during the time that May has been an MP, a cruel and vindictive persecution of people who enjoy tobacco. Here is a typical example:

“It is necessary to put up tobacco taxes to put tobacco products out of the reach of children”.

What is wrong with that statement? Well, for a start, traders are not permitted to sell cigs to children. Oh, and at the same time ‘a child’ has been redefined to include what are defined in law as ‘minors’. Clever, that. In law, the word ‘minor’ means a person who is not old enough to be responsible. The precise age has varied, but is generally recognised to be sixteen. we must be careful to recognise that a youth of 16 is ‘responsible’ – a 15 year old is not.

So the age at which a person can buy tobacco products has been raised beyond the point where they are legally ‘minors’.

I don’t know if it has happened yet in the USA, but there have definitely been moves to increase the age at which a person can buy tobacco products to 21. Some States have already increased the age at which a person can buy alcoholic beverages to 21. And yet ‘kids’ of 17 or so can join the military and get shot or blown up. If you are old enough to operate a weapon, then you MUST be old enough to buy alcoholic beverages.

But the implications of ‘age-related’ bans go much further. They direct youths to more dangerous products. If you are a youth of 19 and are banned from buying cigs, then you might very easily be tempted into trying  much more dangerous substances HERE AND NOW! That seems to have been what happened at Harrow public school. Young students there were tempted to try ecstasy tablets – rather more dangerous than a cig behind the bike sheds. Why does no one point the finger, AT ALL, at tobacco control? It is as though TC is whiter than white. No persecution which it proposes is contrary to ‘Human Rights’.

And that association with ‘human rights’ is what intrigues me. May, in her speech, referred to human rights, but, at the same time, she and her kind, are quite happy to persecute around 25% of the adult population of the UK.

Trump may not address the persecution of smokers in the near term, but if he is to be true to his ideals, he must not only address the problem of the international IPCC (UN climate control), but also the UN FCTC (tobacco control).

And the reasoning is quite simple. The USA must make it clear that IT will decide what is good for its citizens and not the UN.

The UN has a role to play, just as it did after WW2. That role was to encourage discussion and agreements such as the reduction in atomic weapons. It was not to impose restrictions on pleasurable activities of the billions of people in the world.

Theresa May extolled the cooperation of the USA and Britain to maintain freedom, but, at the same time, she permits the funding of blatantly prohibitive actions. What else, other than ‘prohibitive action’ is the requirement to get permission to trade in a ‘free trade’ agricultural product’?

The REAL, BIG problem is that politicians have forgotten what ‘freedom’ means. They think that ‘freedom’ means freedom to obey laws.

I doubt it, but I hope that May and Trump know that Freedom means NOT being DICTATED to.

If we think of the IPCC. It was deliberately set up with Global Warmists. It researches were directed to the possible warming caused by CO2. But it totally ignored the benefits to plants of increased CO2.

Another video which I watched was this:

Myron (?) Ebell was appointed by Trump to manage the transition and make suggestions about how Trump could fulfil his promises. His job was not a permanent job. He did what his job required and then stepped down. But what is important is how calmly he dealt with questions.

But my point to night is to emphasise how hypocritical it is to extol defence of ‘freedom’ whilst permitting the destruction of ‘freedom’. What is even worse is that there are people in Gov Department who are dedicated to advancing the interests of globalists – tobacco control, alcohol control, obesity control, salt control, sugar control, toast control, etc.

They need to be swept away. Academics can be funded to do research and show their results, but they have no right to decree what Government should do. Others, such as philosophers, should make suggestions.

You see, philosophers see that most people recognise that their own pleasurable desires must be tempered by cooperation with their neighbours.  They do not raid each other’s orchards or steal each other’s sheep. Sure, in a lawful society, stealing is penalised by fines and imprisonment, which is reasonable.

But TC has somehow poisoned Society.

Theresa May painted a picture of ‘Freedom’, but she simultaneously permits cruelty, prohibition, propaganda, torture, deprivation, fines and taxes, deliberately aimed at the 25% of adults in the UK who enjoy tobacco.

So, much as I would like to applaud, I cannot do so. The latest persecution, the virtual ban on trading in ‘tobacco plant waste’ via the need for permits to hold or transport such ‘waste’, is typical. Dead and rotting plant leaves need to be regulated.

The mind boggles at how the PM can call to mind the sacrifices of American and British lives for freedom, and, at the same time, harass, fine, persecute, torture, smokers, who just want to be left alone.

So, we smokers can strive to overturn the whole ‘perception’. We are not ‘CASH COWS’. We absolutely refuse to pay any more tax than non-smokers. And that applies also to alcohol and petrol.

Is Theresa May the UK’s Trump? She could be, but I doubt that she has the courage to dismiss all the doom-mongers. Those people must be rooted out and dismissed. They should be replaced with people who have HOPE!


2 Responses to “Political Hypocracy”

  1. Frank Davis Says:

    One thing Myron Ebell said in the video was that the US might “withdraw from the Framework Convention”. Of course what he meant was that it might withdraw from the Framework Convention on Climate Control/Change, not the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, But if they can withdraw from one, they can withdraw from the other. And probably will.

    I agree about May talking about ‘freedom’ and ‘our way of life’ and ‘values’. It’s all rather nauseating when our freedom and way of life and values are being trampled all over. i.e. smoking bans.

    • junican Says:

      I suppose that it is much the same thing, but did he not refer to the ‘Paris Accord’, or whatever it is? The USA signed the FCTC but did not ratify it, whatever the difference might be. As I understand it, nor do they fund the FCTC organisation.
      I liked the way Ebell repelled the ‘offended’ by constantly emphasising that it was about putting into effect what the President had promised to do, and not about whether his promises were a good thing.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: